Sentence relations and truth

Homework correction (pp.113-114)

L2 S4-UE2 Sémantique
I. de la Fuente

Ex. 4.1. empty line

p q p∧q
T F F
T T T
F T F
F F F
Ex. 4.2. We see that the oder of the elements is not always irrelevant and that sometimes the
sequential interpretation matters. For example, the sentences He woke up and saw on TV
that he had won the lottery and He saw on TV that he had won the lottery and he woke
up do not mean the same thing.

Ex. 4.3. empty line

p q p∨q ¬ (p ∨ q) ¬p ∨ q
T F T F F
T T T F T
F T T F T
F F F T T
Ex. 4.4. empty line

a. We spend the afternoons swimming or sunbathing. (Inclusive disjunction)

b. They can resuscitate him or allow him to die. (Exclusive disjunction)

c. If the site is in a particularly sensitive area, or there are safety considerations, we

can refuse planning permission. (Inclusive disjunction)

d. You can take this bus or wait till the next one. (Exclusive disjunction)

e. Beffni is a man’s name or a woman’s name. (Inclusive disjunction - although there

can be a strong exclusive disjunction bias, if you are more used to the name being
used for men vs. women)

f. The base camp is five or six days’ walk from here. (Exclusive disjunction)

g. He doesn’t smoke or drink. (Disjunction not appropriate here because he doesn’t

do either thing)

h. She suffers from agoraphobia, or fear of open places. (Disjunction not appropriate
here - these terms are synonymous)

i. Stop or I’ll shoot. (Exclusive disjunction)

1
 Sémantique (I. de la Fuente) Sentence relations and truth

Ex. 4.6. empty line

(1) a. Olivia passed her driving test.

b. Olivia didn’t fail her driving test.
→ Two-way entailment (a ⇒ b & b ⇒ a): if a is T → b is T; if a is F → b is F;
if b is T → a is T; if b is F → a is F.

(2) a. Cassidy inherited a farm.

b. Cassidy owned a farm.
→ No entailments

(3) a. Cassidy inherited a farm.

b. Cassidy owns a farm.
→ a⇒b

(4) a. Arnold poisoned his wife.

b. Arnold killed his wife.
→ a ⇒ b (one could also argue that poisoning does not necessarily mean killing,
in which case, there is no entailment)

(5) a. We brought this champagne.

b. This champagne was brought by us.
→ Two-way entailment (a ⇒ b & b ⇒ a)

(6) a. Not everyone will like the show.

b. Someone will like the show.
→ No entailments (The following are natural continuations: Not everyone will
like the show. In fact, nobody will ; and Someone will like the show. In fact,
everybody will.)

Ex. 4.7. empty line

– Lisa announced that she got a new job. [Presupposition: Lisa got a new job.]
– John is aware that they disagree on that matter. [Presupposition: They disagree on
that matter.]
– Mary is glad she went to Cuba on vacation. [Presupposition: Mary went to Cuba
on vacation.]
– Paul realized he had made a mistake. [Presupposition: Paul had made a mistake.]
– Sarah is sorry she revealed the secret. [Presupposition: Sarah revealed the secret.]
– Howard knows he didn’t pass the exam. [Presupposition: Howard didn’t pass the
exam.]
– Anne reported the accident. [Presupposition: There was an accident.]

Ex. 4.8. empty line

(1) a. Dave knows that Jim crashed the car.

b. Jim crashed the car.
→ Presupposition

(2) a. Zaire is bigger than Alaska.

b. Alaska is smaller than Zaire.
→ Entailment

2
Sémantique (I. de la Fuente) Sentence relations and truth

(3) a. The minister blames her secretary for leaking the memo to the press.
b. The memo was leaked to the press.
→ Presupposition

(4) a. Everyone passed the examination.

b. No one failed the examination.
→ Entailment

(5) a. Mr Singleton has resumed his habit of drinking stout.

b. Mr Singleton had a habit of drinking stout.
→ Presupposition